There was once a saying in a US political presidential election "its the economy stupid" I am not calling anyone stupid, but if we just substitute "oil" for economy the whole arms deal with Saudi Arabia makes sense. Nevermind the fact that saudis supplied the weapons which killed our own (US) troops, oil is more important than lives even those lives "fighting for our freedom." After all Iran has to import oil and is not friendly to the US or easy to topple from power like Saddam Hussien.
http://www.ameinfo.com/126534.html
Another bit of Iraqi gov't crumbling, oh and since we have done such a great job tracking weapons and getting them to the Iraqi force....Iraq is now turning to China for help. I bet we do a better job tracking the weapons sale to the Saudi's.
Iraq's Largest Sunni Bloc Quits Maliki Government
By VOA News
01 August 2007
Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, 4 March 2007
Nouri al-Maliki (file photo)
Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc has announced its withdrawal from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government, saying he has failed to meet the bloc's demands.
A spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance Front told reporters in Baghdad that the bloc's six cabinet ministers would submit their resignations Wednesday.
Last week, the bloc gave the prime minister a list of demands, including dealing with Shi'ite militias and reforming the conduct of raids and arrests.
The Accordance Front has been boycotting Cabinet meetings since June to protest legal proceedings against Cultural Minister Asad al-Hashimi, who is accused of arranging to have another politician killed.
In violence Wednesday, Iraqi police said a car bomb blast in Baghdad's Karradah neighborhood killed at least 15 people and wounded more than 20 others.
Separately, the U.S. military said three American soldiers were killed and six others wounded when their patrol was hit by a sophisticated armor-piercing bomb during combat operations in eastern Baghdad Tuesday.
In Washington, U.S. government auditors say the United States has provided $19.2 billion to train and equip Iraqi security forces, but the U.S. military is unable to fully determine what equipment Iraqis have received.
The report from the Government Accountability Office, GAO, says that as of this July, the military still did not have a comprehensive system for tracking the equipment.
Investigators found a discrepancy of at least 190,000 weapons in two military accounting systems tracking the equipment disbursements.
Last week, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States said Iraq is turning to China for weapons and military equipment because of U.S. delays in providing them.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-08-01-voa5.cfm
Some people do have very short memories. This administration is "bragging" that the death toll in Iraq is down, but that was the case last year in July. Also, with the "surge," most of the insurgents just went underground to wait out the surge.
People forget; Bush used to say, prepeatedly, that we can't tell our enemies our plans, or they'll just wait it out. DUH~! How many college degrees does it take to figure this slow-down in killings take?
revel, Thank you for posting the stats for past years and the month of July in particular. It's amazing how this administration tries to get away with bull shite, and they get away with most of them. What galls me the most are the generals reporting from Iraq that things are "improving."
Starting this month very badly.
Car bombs kill dozens in Baghdad
One blast happened in Baghdad's mainly Sunni district of Mansour
At least 67 people have been killed and almost 100 have been wounded in two separate bombings in Baghdad, Iraqi police have said.
In one attack, a fuel tanker exploded near a petrol station in the mainly Sunni suburb of Mansour, killing 50.
Earlier, at least 17 people were killed and 32 injured in a blast in the mainly Shia shopping district of Karrada.
Elsewhere, US officials said three of its troops had been killed, and the UK said a British soldier had died.
IT'S LONG PAST TIME FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO SAY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ:
Your job is to defend your people.
Our job is to exterminate al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Do your job.
We are doing our job.
ican wrote :
Quote:"APRIL 108
MAY 131
JUNE 117
JULY 73
The surge started when? "
have you given any thought as to what might happen when the sunnis get "pinned to the wall" by the shiites ?
of course , i don't know exactly what might happen at that point , but my guess is that the saudis do not want a shiite controlled government in iraq - and i also doubt that the u.s. would want that to happen , or is my assumption wrong ? - and would likely allow more sunni fighters/insurgents to cross into iraq .
the u.s. government has stated that the weapon sales to saudi arabia and others are made to keep iran in check - of course the iranians are shiites .
i also understand that iran wants to have a greater influence in iraq - and probably would like to install a shiite government - after all , the majority of iraqis are shiites .
so , any predictions on what the eventual outcome in iraq and the middle east will be ? more dictatorships in the saudi style ? "democracies" anyplace in the middle east ?
when i last checked , israel was the only country with a freely elected government .
hbg
for further information :
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
hbg: when i last checked , israel was the only country with a freely elected government .
Must be careful about statements that implies all Israelis/Palestinians are able to vote.
From the Washington Post.
Israel Rebuffs Palestinian Unity Government
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, March 19, 2007; Page A09
JERUSALEM, March 18 -- The Israeli cabinet voted Sunday to limit future talks with even moderate Palestinian officials to shared security and humanitarian concerns, ruling out a formal peace process until the new Palestinian government recognizes Israel and renounces violence.
In officially rejecting the Palestinian unity government that was sworn in over the weekend, the cabinet also stated that "Israel expects the international community to maintain the policy it has taken over the past year of isolating the Palestinian government."
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ?
--------------------------------------
can one be "cautiously" optimistic ?
we shall soon know if a peace initiative in the middle east will take root -
let's hope so and let's be "cautiously" optimistic .
hbg
Quote:Saudis back US Middle East plans
Saudi Arabia says it supports US plans for a regional peace conference this year and would be keen to attend.
The conference is intended to revive the peace process and would include Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states viewed as moderate by the US.
"We welcome this initiative," said Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal.
The kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Israel, saying previously it would only establish them at the culmination of an Arab-Israeli peace settlement.
Prince Saud was speaking during a rare joint visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
He also announced Saudi Arabia would soon
explore the possibility of diplomatic ties with the Shia-led government in Iraq, a move long sought by the US.
BBC Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says the idea of sitting down with the Israelis is controversial among many Saudis, including members of the powerful religious establishment.
Saudi Arabia has recently relaunched a peace plan it first put forward in 2002, and
our analyst says its rulers may now feel it is time to show they are serious, although the prince's remarks remained cautious.
"When we get an invitation from the minister [Ms Rice] to attend, when this takes place, we will study it - and we will be keen to attend," he said, speaking in Arabic.
Criticism
Prince Saud said he was "astounded" by recent remarks by US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad, in which he accused Saudi Arabia of undermining efforts to stabilise war-ravaged Iraq.
Saudi Arabia has not had an embassy in Baghdad since the first Gulf War in 1990, despite pressure from the US after its forces led the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
"My explanation is that he must have been influenced by the atmosphere at the UN when he went to New York" [after serving as US envoy in Baghdad], he said.
Sunni Muslim-ruled Saudi Arabia has criticised the post-Saddam system in Baghdad for reducing Sunni Arab influence and increasing that of regional rival Iran.
Hamas issue
Before the tour began, the US offered a $20bn (£9.9bn) arms package to Arab Gulf states including Saudi Arabia, which is the world's biggest oil-producer.
Ms Rice has now arrived in Jerusalem to have talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
She will also travel to the West Bank, to meet Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.
It is Ms Rice's first visit since the Hamas movement defeated Fatah to seize control of the Gaza Strip in June.
Hamas, the 2006 Palestinian election winner, refused to sign up to previous peace deals with Israel, and its military victory in Gaza deals a serious blow to Mr Bush's strategic vision of a two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6925583.stm
Published: 2007/08/01 13:22:33 GMT
SOURCE : SAUDIS AND MIDDLE EAST PEACE
hamburger wrote:ican wrote :
Quote:"APRIL 108
MAY 131
JUNE 117
JULY 73
The surge started when? "
have you given any thought as to what might happen when the sunnis get "pinned to the wall" by the shiites ?
...
Yes! Without our protection the current government of Iraq (such as it is) MIGHT:
(1) recognize it is their own self-interest for them to themselves try to stop inter- and intra-tribal warfare;
(2) decide to stay on vacation while inter- and intra-tribal warfare kills thousands; or,
(3) decide to commit to the US they will adopt the US's recommendations if the US helps them stop inter- and intra- tribal warfare.
watched the CNN news around 5 pm .
it showed a clip where the saudi foreign minister - sitting between secretaries rice and gage - expressed
astonishment at charge by U.S. ambassador to united nations that saudi arabia is supporting sunni insurgency into iraq .
could not find these news in print .
the closest is this report from the washington post .
read and be
astonished !
hbg
Quote:Saudi Arabia to Explore Iraq Relations
By ABDULLAH SHIHRI
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 6:34 PM
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said Wednesday that his country would consider reopening an embassy in Baghdad, a step long sought by the Bush administration to help legitimize the Shiite-led Iraqi government.
At a joint press conference, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said he told the visiting U.S. secretaries of state and defense that his country will soon send a diplomatic mission to Baghdad "and explore how we can start an embassy in Iraq."
Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim country, has had frosty relations with the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and has not hidden its suspicions that al-Maliki does not have the interests of Iraq's Sunni minority at heart.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked her Saudi host for considering diplomatic ties, calling it "an important step."
The Arab world has lagged far behind Europe in placing embassies in Baghdad.
Responding to criticism from the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, al-Faisal said Saudi Arabia is already doing all it can to address concerns about the flow of terrorists over its border into Iraq. "All that we can do in order to protect the border in Iraq we have been doing," he said.The foreign minister insisted his country was supportive of the Iraqi government.
"As an indication of our good intentions, we let their (soccer) team win," al-Faisal joked, referring to Iraq's soccer victory over Saudi Arabia in the final of the Asia Cup
(a pretty weak joke imo).
source : WASHINGTON POST
Too little, too late.
UN resolution on bigger Iraq role
By Matthew Wells
BBC News, New York
Twenty-three people died in the 2003 attack
The US and the UK have circulated a new draft resolution to United Nations Security Council members giving the UN a more heavyweight role in Iraq.
If adopted, the UN would take a larger role in its political process.
The existing UN mission in Iraq has had a low-key presence ever since a truck bomb devastated its headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003.
Diplomats say a vote on any resolution by 10 August, when the existing mandate for the UN's mission in Iraq expires.
American and British diplomats are keen to find a way to involve the UN more in Iraq's political future.
The resolution would give the UN a greater role in humanitarian work
This draft resolution would extend and widen the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, giving it a much more powerful advisory role.
It calls for a beefed-up mission that would work directly with the Iraqi government to promote reconciliation and help improve sectarian relations within the Iraqi parliament.
The draft resolution calls for more UN involvement in helping refugees to return and managing humanitarian aid and helping the entire national reconstruction effort.
It also points out the importance of armed protection by mainly US forces for any enhanced UN team on the ground.
William Polk guest op-ed
Executive Summary of the conclusion of Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism & Guerrilla Warfare from the American Revolution to Iraq. By William R. Polk, to be published on September 15, 2007 by HarperCollins.
Fighting insurgencies is enormously expensive in both lives and treasure. In Iraq, nearly 3,500 American servicemen and women have lost their lives and at least 25,000 have been wounded of whom half will never fully recover and many will spend the rest of their lives in hospitals. About one in five soldiers who served in Iraq has been "at least partly disabled." More than one in three of the 500,000 Marines and soldiers sent there over the past four years needed mental health treatment. Neurologists predict that hundreds of thousands more - at least one in each three soldiers who have engaged in combat for four months or longer - will suffer blindness, deafness and/or mental impairment from concussions. Many others will possibly develop cancer and/or will conceive children who will be born with severe defects because of exposure to the depleted uranium used in artillery shells and bombs. Crassly put, the walking wounded will not only be unable fully to contribute to American society but will be a burden on it.
The monetary costs are great and rising. Current costs are running at more than $7.1 billion a month --$10 million an hour - and are rising more than 20% a year. The direct costs of the war are expected to rise shortly to at least $700 billion. But this outlay is only the tip of the iceberg. According to Nobel Prize Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce Linda Bilmes, the real cost to America, as it would be figured by standard accounting methods, is between one and two trillion dollars.
What have these costs bought? No well-informed observer believes that the war in Iraq is approaching success by any definition. As the historical record makes clear, any increase in numbers is less likely to overawe the natives than to provide more targets. In fact, the Iraqi insurgency appears to be gaining rather than losing power. Even the most protected area in Iraq, the "Green Zone," is under almost constant attack and the insurgency is now self-financing. Is there "light at the end of the tunnel?" No. The new senior American commander, General Odierno, believes that, under President Bush's new strategy, the war will last for years.
Is there some new magic formula for success? Generals David Petraeus and James Amos argue that there is. They have laid out a counterinsurgency doctrine. (December 2006 Counterinsurgency Field Manual). But it is not new. When tried in Vietnam, it did not work. As Petraeus and Amos admit, the key element in insurgency is political: "each side aims to get the people to accept its governance or authority as legitimate." Is this a feasible objective for foreigners? One searches the historical record in vain for an example of success. The foreign occupying force, by definition, is alien. Vietnam showed that even when the aliens (us) had a numerous and established local ally (the South Vietnamese government) that ally was more apt to be alienated by its association with the foreign military force than that force was to be "Vietnamized" by their native ally. In sum, the single absolutely necessary ingredient in counterinsurgency is extremely unlikely ever to be available to foreigners.
Can we not, therefore, "Iraqize" the war? We tried in Vietnam to "Vietnamize" that war by empowering the South Vietnam Government. But there, and elsewhere, natives always see such action as facades behind which foreigners stay - as the British did in Iraq. So the foreign-supported governments are not supported and have little power. We saw this in Vietnam and are already seeing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. No insurgency has been defeated in this way for at least the last century. In fact, trying this ploy in Vietnam, and gradually withdrawing over four years, cost an additional 21,000 American lives.
What about "the war on terror" beyond Iraq? Little public attention is paid to Afghanistan or - so far - to Somalia and the Philippines. Another campaign is in the advanced positioning stage against Iran. Others are being discussed for various parts of Africa and at least one for Latin America. The men who designed the current Bush administration foreign policy, the neoconservatives, have called the combination of these campaigns "the long war" and have predicted - indeed proposed - that they will last half a century. Going down this path will result in thousands of American dead and tens of thousands crippled, will severely strain American democratic institutions at home and further erode America's reputation abroad. The monetary costs have been estimated at 15 trillion dollars.
Is this just a nightmare? In the spring of 2006, before he left office, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved three plans to fight the "long war" beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. One, the "Special Operations Command (SOC)," is now composed of 53,000 men and operates on a budget in 2007 of $8 billion. It has already dispatched teams of Special Forces to some 20 American embassies in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. These teams operate separately from the embassies and are not subject to control by the senior civilian American representatives, the ambassadors, as they engage in covert warfare not only against groups regarded as terrorist but even against states. Although these SOC teams could bring America into war with any number of countries, they are treated by the Bush administration as not subject to Congressional oversight or decision.
So what if we get out of Iraq" Will this not be seen as a major defeat and so encourage our enemies? The answer depends in large part on how intelligent we are and how carefully we act. Consider three possible courses of action: 1) staying the course (as we did in Vietnam for four additional years) did not give us victory but humiliation when we were finally forced out; 2) precipitate withdrawal without compensatory action will not create chaos but will leave behind in Iraq the existing chaos. That is to be avoided to the degree still possible; and (3) getting out on an orderly schedule sufficiently rapidly to convince the Iraqis that they must pick up the pieces and with a carefully constructed program that will help them to do so. (This is what former Senator George McGovern and I laid out in detail, with cost estimates, timetable and evaluation of success in Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now, published by Simon & Schuster at the end of 2006.) This is still the only available plan that addresses how to do it.
What happens if we do not get out of Iraq? Quite simply, the war will continue. Casualties will mount. As Generals Robert G. Gard and John H. Johns summarized, "What is worse than soldiers dying in vain is even more soldiers dying in vain." Vast amounts of money will be wasted. And sooner or later, probably in the next election, the American public will revolt against the Congress it has elected. Then we are apt to be forced to "cut and run" as in Vietnam.
What happens to our "war on terror if we get out of Iraq? The Bush administration's current plan, the U.S. National Security Policy, is virtually a declaration of war against any state we believe could rival us. This is not just rhetoric: it is made up of operational plans, dedicated military personnel, operating from nearly 400 existing foreign bases with prepositioned weapons and sustained by an already allocated budget. In the face of what they see, many countries that are not our enemies and which do not favor terrorism, have come to fear us. Only those who think they can deter us feel safe.. Thus, the policy promotes acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, preparation for anti-American guerrilla warfare and, where feasible, terrorism and does so precisely among those about which we are most worried. Getting out of Iraq soon and constructively could be the first step in recapturing the respect and cooperation America has traditionally enjoyed. It is a step long overdue and for the national interest should be taken soon.
Quote: Attacks across Iraq claim 142 lives
More 'success' from Republicans.
Yahoo News
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
More 'success' from Republicans.
...
Cycloptichorn
Assuming the USA is not succeeding in Iraq now, what shall the USA do?
>Leave Iraq and guarantee USA failure in Iraq.
>Continue the present strategy and tactics in Iraq.
>Adopt better strategy and/or better tactics for succeeding in Iraq.
>Complain about George Bush's incompetence and/or fraud.
The first and last choices are the choices of fools and/or frauds.
Well, you're the one who has consistently and continually been incorrect in your estimations of the war and predictions about the future of the war, so I really could care less what your opinion of those who choose options you don't like is. As far as I am concerned, when you are against an option, it's like an endorsement of it, b/c you are frequently wrong.
I choose option A, though I disagree it means we lost the war.
Cycloptichorn
